India’s rural employment landscape faces a pivotal transformation. The Centre has introduced new legislation during the Winter Session to supersede the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA) with The Viksit Bharat Guarantee For Rozgar And Ajeevika Mission (Grameen), or VB G RAM G. This ambitious move has initiated significant parliamentary debate and robust political discussion, with the opposition raising pertinent questions about the rationale behind such a sweeping change. This blog post delves into the intricacies of the proposed VB G RAM G scheme, its key departures from MGNREGA, and the political points of contention.
The Evolution from MGNREGA to VB G RAM G
For nearly two decades, the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA), launched by the then UPA government in 2005, has served as an indispensable cornerstone of rural welfare in India. Guaranteeing 100 days of wage employment in a financial year to adult members of any rural household willing to do unskilled manual work, it has proven a crucial safety net and a significant force for poverty alleviation. The government now proposes the VB G RAM G Bill, aiming to consciously align rural employment strategies with the broader “Viksit Bharat 2047” vision for a truly developed India. This new framework seeks to build upon MGNREGA’s foundational successes, introducing judicious modifications for enhanced efficiency, broader scope, and greater impact, thereby addressing contemporary rural economic challenges and aspirations more comprehensively.
(NDTV)
Key Enhancements and Structural Changes
The proposed VB G RAM G scheme introduces critical updates to significantly improve the employment guarantee framework. A primary enhancement is increasing guaranteed workdays from 100 to 125 annually, offering extended income security. The Bill prioritizes quicker payments, stipulating wage disbursement within one to fifteen days post-work. A vital provision includes an unemployment allowance if payments are delayed, mitigating financial distress. Work under VB G RAM G will be systematically categorized into four core areas: water security, rural infrastructure, livelihood infrastructure, and disaster resilience, fostering holistic development. Importantly, work will not be conducted during peak agricultural seasons. To bolster transparency and accountability, the Bill mandates biometrics and geotagging for robust project monitoring. Additionally, a multi-level grievance redressal mechanism is integrated, promising a more responsive system. These structural changes aim to make the scheme more robust, adaptable, and aligned with modern governance principles.
A Shift in Funding Dynamics
One of the most profound alterations in VB G RAM G is its proposed funding model, a significant departure from MGNREGA. Under MGNREGA, the Centre solely bore 100% of unskilled labor wages, with states covering skilled labor and material costs. The new G RAM G scheme proposes a 60:40 Centre-state cost-sharing ratio for most states, increasing their financial contribution. Northeastern and Himalayan states receive a more favorable 90:10 ratio, acknowledging their unique challenges, while Union Territories retain 100% central funding. This revised framework projects an annual expenditure of approximately Rs 1.51 lakh crore, with the Centre’s share estimated at Rs 95,692 crore. This fundamental shift aims to foster greater state involvement and collaboration in the scheme’s implementation and oversight, potentially enhancing its effectiveness and sustainability.
Political Reactions and the “Bapu” Question
The VB G RAM G Bill has triggered a political tempest, particularly from the opposition Congress. Senior leaders voiced strong objections, questioning the motive behind renaming a scheme historically associated with Mahatma Gandhi. Priyanka Gandhi Vadra explicitly queried the removal of Mahatma Gandhi’s name, emphasizing his national icon status and highlighting potential administrative expenditure. She expressed concern that parliamentary time and public money were diverted to nomenclature rather than pressing national issues. Congress MP Ranjeet Ranjan critically remarked on a perceived pattern, stating “they have a problem with Bapu,” drawing parallels to earlier alleged issues with other leaders. She urged the government to improve existing MGNREGA by ensuring timely payments and increasing workdays, rather than merely changing its identity. The opposition’s stance underscores a deeper ideological battle, viewing the rebranding as an attempt to reshape national narratives.
Disclaimer
The information in this blog post is based on reports and public statements available at the time of writing. It is intended for general informational purposes only and does not constitute professional advice. While efforts ensure accuracy, readers should verify details from official sources. This article does not endorse any specific political views or affiliations.
Image Credit: NDTV
